Juanita Broaddrick, though my use of victims in the post that you've quoted also applies to the one whose rapist got off with Hillary's help in the courtroom. The verdict's the verdict, but it doesn't not make his prey a victim (again, this was just Hillary doing her job, so I'm not counting it as an instance of rape enabling for the sake of our discussion). I mean, if the girl's rapist went to prison and ended up getting HIV, we'd be paying for the scum's medical treatments.
Juanita Broaddrick filed an affidavit saying there was no assault. Her testimony was the only thing that anyone ever had to go on, and it was suspect.
At a fundraiser, a major figure shakes your hand and thanks you? That's perfectly normal!
Anyways, this thread has gotten significantly off-topic. Back to Trump, please.
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
If we're going back to Trump, maybe TaheenMage would like to explain whether he applies his same standard of "take her at her word" in other cases. Specifically, whether he takes Jane Doe (anonymized name, obviously) at her word when she alleges:
I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.
The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.
Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,
Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.
And, further, if he takes Tiffany Doe, an alleged eye witness at her word:
I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.
I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.
It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.
I assume the answer is yes, and that TaheenMage also believes that Trump is not only a "rape enabler" but also a child rapist himself.
He is campaigning in states where he is not expected to be able to gain any ground. For example, Colorado just swung his way in the polls and it was thought he had no chance there.
He is campaigning in states where he is not expected to be able to gain any ground. For example, Colorado just swung his way in the polls and it was thought he had no chance there.
That I understand. More states that were originally strong leaning blue are not back in the middle for undecided, and a few red undecided went back to leaning red.
I am asking the theory of why this is happening. I kind of thought Trumps support had hit its ceiling. If anything, I expected Clinton's loss to be picked up by Johnson or Stein.
(for those who can't be bothered clicking: Trump declared a ~915 million loss on his 1995 taxes, related to collapse of several businesses)
The thing is, yeah, he probably doesn't pay all that much (relatively speaking) in taxes, but why should we consider that a fault of his? He certainly does have many legitimate faults, but I don't see why this is a thing we should be upset about. Is it not the goal of every person, including all of us here, to pay as little in taxes as possible? I mean, if I had a way to legally keep more of my money, I'd absolutely do it, and I'm sure you would too. He probably is using some ridiculous loophole to do it, but that just makes him smart to do so if it's legal, and he's almost certainly not the only one that's done it. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the incompetent politicians who incentivized that behavior by creating those stupid loopholes and never bothering to fix them.
Oftentimes those loopholes were created because certain economic lobby groups pressure the US into the stupid "trickle down policy". Rich people are aleady taxed much less than other groups and that creates holes in the budget for social agencies of the government, meaning that holding back even more tax money means undermining the whole social market system to an even greater degree (this is of course a simplified model of whats happening in real life, but you get the idea). It may be smart of him (disputable since he now has to face the consequences, indicating short term over long term thinking) but it's certainly not ethically sound and I don't think it fits a president. Even worse though is that he doesn't want to give his capital to a neutral party for as long as he is president (like every president has done for some time now), instead giving it to his children, creating quite the conflict of interest should he really become president.
(for those who can't be bothered clicking: Trump declared a ~915 million loss on his 1995 taxes, related to collapse of several businesses)
The no taxes line will sting, but it's been floating around since Trump initially refused to release his tax returns. Trump has been accused of being bad at business even longer than he's been accused of being a tax dodger, so this comes as no surprise
What hasn't been floating around is -$915,729,293. That's a lot of money to report lost in one year. It's a specific attack point now rather than speculation.
Then there's the broader context. It feeds directly into the tax line and the bad business line, and it's something that's specific. Also, this broke just a day after Donald Trump's 3AM tweetstorm lashing at Alicia Machado in what I believe can objectively be called misogynistic and within the same week he did what has been widely panned as one of the most erratic and possibly worst presidential debate performances in video recorded history. Taken together... it should surprise no one that Hillary Clinton bounced in the polls.
The most immediate damage to Trump is that it's distracting people away from Hillary Clinton when Trump needs to be selling her as Washington's worst insider. Here's an example from Friday: While there's little open admission, she's working hard to keep people from bailing to the Greens and Libertarians, and Friday's audio leak from a private fundraiser of Clinton's assessment of Bernie's base risks reopening primary wounds. That audio leak was immediately pushed to the back burner by Trump's taxes and could be forgotten... already... because Trump is now forced to play defense and few people are going to come to his aid to refocus the campaign to "Make America Great Again" or cast a negative light on Clinton.
Long term damage is I don't see how the entirety of the last week for Trump does not shut him out of all undecided voters, barring some Clinton October surprise that disperses her base into Johnson and Stein, giving Trump the election via spoiled.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The thing is, yeah, he probably doesn't pay all that much (relatively speaking) in taxes, but why should we consider that a fault of his? He certainly does have many legitimate faults, but I don't see why this is a thing we should be upset about. Is it not the goal of every person, including all of us here, to pay as little in taxes as possible? I mean, if I had a way to legally keep more of my money, I'd absolutely do it, and I'm sure you would too. He probably is using some ridiculous loophole to do it, but that just makes him smart to do so if it's legal, and he's almost certainly not the only one that's done it. If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the incompetent politicians who incentivized that behavior by creating those stupid loopholes and never bothering to fix them.
It's smart to take advantage of tax loopholes, but is it still smart if you lose nearly a billion dollars in one year in order to do so? If your businesses preform so abysmally that the tax system takes pity on you and lets you off the hook, that's not smart. That's just welfare.
It's smart to take advantage of tax loopholes, but is it still smart if you lose nearly a billion dollars in one year in order to do so? If your businesses preform so abysmally that the tax system takes pity on you and lets you off the hook, that's not smart. That's just welfare.
As the article implies, there are ways to account that allow you to report a net operating loss without actually losing that much money. So this doesn't actually say as much about his business acumen or lack thereof as you might think. That said, it looks really bad.
And Trump's defense to criticism on the tax front has long been that he is the one to reform the tax code because he "knows all the holes". I would like to see an interviewer or debate moderator ask him point-blank, "As president, would you eliminate the N.O.L. rule?"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As the article implies, there are ways to account that allow you to report a net operating loss without actually losing that much money. So this doesn't actually say as much about his business acumen or lack thereof as you might think. That said, it looks really bad.
And Trump's defense to criticism on the tax front has long been that he is the one to reform the tax code because he "knows all the holes". I would like to see an interviewer or debate moderator ask him point-blank, "As president, would you eliminate the N.O.L. rule?"
Sure, but we know enough about Trump's holdings in 1995 to know that he really was hemorrhaging money from his casinos. Regardless of what accounting tricks might have inflated the numbers, the fundamental narrative that Trump didn't pay taxes because his business were losing a lot of money seems accurate to me.
Question about the "Rosie is a fat cow/pig" comment from the Rep Primaries...why would anyone other than Rosie get offended? I mean, this one time in lecture we had a heavyset lady professor speaking, and one of the girls in our fantasy league messaged a picture of Jabba the Hutt with "who does this remind you of? Lol" during the lecture...I don't understand this particular bit of outrage. It makes more sense to be mad at Trump for his position on abortion, or other issues, that would have a wider application than to one individual.
Because some people don't understand the difference between demeaning women from demeaning a woman. I'm not saying it excuses anything in particular he has said (it is pretty much the least presidential ***** a person could say), but I can totally understand why someone would take umbrage with her specifically, and they do have a history. It ultimately boils down to an individualist versus collectivist perspective. Individualist persons (self included) can look at that and see "ok, he obviously hates Rosie" without assuming greater meaning, whereas a more collectivist person is likely to think "he hates a famous woman; I think that's going to be bad for women as a group so that's a problem".
Would you at least agree that Trump's comments are demeaning to fat people in general?
That's something the media keeps bringing up. It didn't make sense to get mad there since you can control your weight. It makes more sense getting mad about his period crack to Mrs Kelly since that's biological and pretty much just a fact of life.
That's something the media keeps bringing up. It didn't make sense to get mad there since you can control your weight. It makes more sense getting mad about his period crack to Mrs Kelly since that's biological and pretty much just a fact of life.
What does whether you can control your weight have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that it's open season on any traits that someone can choose?
Not at all. I don't approve of it, but I don't see why its an issue given it was directed at one individual. Yes, the period slur was thrown at Mrs Kelly - but that's not exactly something you can control. Its slightly different: something the individual can do something about vs something that's just a part of your natural physiology (the period thing is about the same as when he made fun of that disabled reporter guy; crass and over the line).
Not at all. I don't approve of it, but I don't see why its an issue given it was directed at one individual. Yes, the period slur was thrown at Mrs Kelly - but that's not exactly something you can control. Its slightly different: something the individual can do something about vs something that's just a part of your natural physiology (the period thing is about the same as when he made fun of that disabled reporter guy; crass and over the line).
I'm confused. You said you don't think it's open season on any traits that someone can choose, and then you go on to say that the Megyn Kelly comments are totally different because they were about something that can't be controlled.
You got the right of it, you are confused. A woman can't choose to not have a period, no more than that reporter could not choose to have his neuro issue. Rosie could do something about her weight; since that's under her control, the kerfuffle over the comment came across as overblown. Those comments about Rosie didn't seem any different at their core than when, say, one of your female friends posts a "what's your excuse" type exercise motivator after they've had a kid, for example.
You got the right of it, you are confused. A woman can't choose to not have a period, no more than that reporter could not choose to have his neuro issue. Rosie could do something about her weight; since that's under her control, the kerfuffle over the comment came across as overblown. Those comments about Rosie didn't seem any different at their core than when, say, one of your female friends posts a "what's your excuse" type exercise motivator after they've had a kid, for example.
So what if Rosie could do something about her weight? How does that in any way excuse or soften Trump's insult?
The point isn't to find a way to soften it or excuse it. Its crass - but I don't see why people are getting outraged on Rosie's behalf (given my prior examples of female friends kinda ribbing at fat people via the Jabba pic or the 'what's your excuse' motivators). Since I don't understand this perspective that motivates the individual to express outrage on another's behalf for this sort of targeted issue (as opposed to something more general like the slurs against Mrs Kelly or the reporter with the neuro deficit), I decided to seek education here in the Trump thread from the regulars.
The point isn't to find a way to soften it or excuse it. Its crass - but I don't see why people are getting outraged on Rosie's behalf (given my prior examples of female friends kinda ribbing at fat people via the Jabba pic or the 'what's your excuse' motivators). Since I don't understand this perspective that motivates the individual to express outrage on another's behalf for this sort of targeted issue (as opposed to something more general like the slurs against Mrs Kelly or the reporter with the neuro deficit), I decided to seek education here in the Trump thread from the regulars.
Here you talk about an issue being "targeted" as opposed to "general" - this seems like a completely different explanation than what you had been saying. I'm trying to understand why you feel it's relevant that a woman can't choose to not have a period, but that Rosie could choose to do something about her weight. You seem to feel that that's a key distinction, but I can't get you to explain why it's important.
I'm not even sure I understand how you can feel that an insult on the basis of weight is less general than an insult on the basis of a rare neurological condition. That doesn't make any sense.
The people angry about the Rosie comment aren't Rosie O'Donnell, they're strangers - and the meat of the comment, her weight, is something O'Donnell could change if she so desired. Since its directed at a specific individual, and is changeable, I don't get why total strangers would take offense at the comment. In Rosie's case, its a simple matter of putting down the fork, finding an exercise regime and sticking with it.
I think this behavior that I'm asking about - people getting offended by Trump's comments, seemingly on Rosie's behalf - is what the alt-right calls "virtue signaling."
Juanita Broaddrick filed an affidavit saying there was no assault. Her testimony was the only thing that anyone ever had to go on, and it was suspect.
At a fundraiser, a major figure shakes your hand and thanks you? That's perfectly normal!
Anyways, this thread has gotten significantly off-topic. Back to Trump, please.
Yes, in case anyone missed it, the Hillary Clinton thread is over here:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/community-forums/debate/693223-president-hillary-diane-rodham-clintons-presidency
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
And, further, if he takes Tiffany Doe, an alleged eye witness at her word:
I assume the answer is yes, and that TaheenMage also believes that Trump is not only a "rape enabler" but also a child rapist himself.
Aside from the whole #diseasegate on Clinton side, what else is causing Trump to gain electoral votes?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
That I understand. More states that were originally strong leaning blue are not back in the middle for undecided, and a few red undecided went back to leaning red.
I am asking the theory of why this is happening. I kind of thought Trumps support had hit its ceiling. If anything, I expected Clinton's loss to be picked up by Johnson or Stein.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
So how much does this hurt trump?
(for those who can't be bothered clicking: Trump declared a ~915 million loss on his 1995 taxes, related to collapse of several businesses)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Oftentimes those loopholes were created because certain economic lobby groups pressure the US into the stupid "trickle down policy". Rich people are aleady taxed much less than other groups and that creates holes in the budget for social agencies of the government, meaning that holding back even more tax money means undermining the whole social market system to an even greater degree (this is of course a simplified model of whats happening in real life, but you get the idea). It may be smart of him (disputable since he now has to face the consequences, indicating short term over long term thinking) but it's certainly not ethically sound and I don't think it fits a president. Even worse though is that he doesn't want to give his capital to a neutral party for as long as he is president (like every president has done for some time now), instead giving it to his children, creating quite the conflict of interest should he really become president.
The no taxes line will sting, but it's been floating around since Trump initially refused to release his tax returns. Trump has been accused of being bad at business even longer than he's been accused of being a tax dodger, so this comes as no surprise
What hasn't been floating around is -$915,729,293. That's a lot of money to report lost in one year. It's a specific attack point now rather than speculation.
Then there's the broader context. It feeds directly into the tax line and the bad business line, and it's something that's specific. Also, this broke just a day after Donald Trump's 3AM tweetstorm lashing at Alicia Machado in what I believe can objectively be called misogynistic and within the same week he did what has been widely panned as one of the most erratic and possibly worst presidential debate performances in video recorded history. Taken together... it should surprise no one that Hillary Clinton bounced in the polls.
The most immediate damage to Trump is that it's distracting people away from Hillary Clinton when Trump needs to be selling her as Washington's worst insider. Here's an example from Friday: While there's little open admission, she's working hard to keep people from bailing to the Greens and Libertarians, and Friday's audio leak from a private fundraiser of Clinton's assessment of Bernie's base risks reopening primary wounds. That audio leak was immediately pushed to the back burner by Trump's taxes and could be forgotten... already... because Trump is now forced to play defense and few people are going to come to his aid to refocus the campaign to "Make America Great Again" or cast a negative light on Clinton.
Long term damage is I don't see how the entirety of the last week for Trump does not shut him out of all undecided voters, barring some Clinton October surprise that disperses her base into Johnson and Stein, giving Trump the election via spoiled.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
It's smart to take advantage of tax loopholes, but is it still smart if you lose nearly a billion dollars in one year in order to do so? If your businesses preform so abysmally that the tax system takes pity on you and lets you off the hook, that's not smart. That's just welfare.
And Trump's defense to criticism on the tax front has long been that he is the one to reform the tax code because he "knows all the holes". I would like to see an interviewer or debate moderator ask him point-blank, "As president, would you eliminate the N.O.L. rule?"
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sure, but we know enough about Trump's holdings in 1995 to know that he really was hemorrhaging money from his casinos. Regardless of what accounting tricks might have inflated the numbers, the fundamental narrative that Trump didn't pay taxes because his business were losing a lot of money seems accurate to me.
Would you at least agree that Trump's comments are demeaning to fat people in general?
What does whether you can control your weight have to do with anything? Are you under the impression that it's open season on any traits that someone can choose?
I'm confused. You said you don't think it's open season on any traits that someone can choose, and then you go on to say that the Megyn Kelly comments are totally different because they were about something that can't be controlled.
Which is it?
So what if Rosie could do something about her weight? How does that in any way excuse or soften Trump's insult?
Here you talk about an issue being "targeted" as opposed to "general" - this seems like a completely different explanation than what you had been saying. I'm trying to understand why you feel it's relevant that a woman can't choose to not have a period, but that Rosie could choose to do something about her weight. You seem to feel that that's a key distinction, but I can't get you to explain why it's important.
I'm not even sure I understand how you can feel that an insult on the basis of weight is less general than an insult on the basis of a rare neurological condition. That doesn't make any sense.
The people angry about the Rosie comment aren't Rosie O'Donnell, they're strangers - and the meat of the comment, her weight, is something O'Donnell could change if she so desired. Since its directed at a specific individual, and is changeable, I don't get why total strangers would take offense at the comment. In Rosie's case, its a simple matter of putting down the fork, finding an exercise regime and sticking with it.
I think this behavior that I'm asking about - people getting offended by Trump's comments, seemingly on Rosie's behalf - is what the alt-right calls "virtue signaling."